buckaineer
Banned
Posts: 4,806
Joined: Jul 2007
I Root For: WV Mountaineers
Location:
|
RE: Latest from Frank the Tank
(06-28-2010 09:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote: (06-28-2010 09:03 AM)buckaineer Wrote: Hmmm, a "scolding" like this from a poster who wrote:
in answer to:For the Big Ten, their consultants have told everyone that expansion makes financial sense, they have said they will all make more money, not just stand pat.
Adcorbett wrote:You are basing way to much on the info the Big Ten consultants leaked (two weeks after being hired I might add), that just so happens to benefit them, which goes against everyone else who has studied it
The Big Ten btw expanded
Hmm, I like how you edit these things and take them out of context. Considering I was responding to someone talking about expanding to involve more than 12 teams, Oh did I mention that someone in that post I made caviat that they would never expand past 12 teams without Notre Dame and Texas, and that they would never capture the New York market based on the teams they were targeting. But oh yeah, sure, I am totally off base. By the way, how many did they expand to again? and what was the subject of the blog entry we are responding to? I'd say I was on to something.
Hmm, Actually you were responding to one of my posts regarding the B10 adding 1-5 candidates, not going past 12 as you now try and pretend. But then you always have been a master of posting things then denying or trying to twist it around later to pretend you have any intelligence. You chastise Frank, yet can't admit once again YOU WERE WRONG ON THIS
(06-28-2010 09:03 AM)buckaineer Wrote: in answer to: the SEC network that has come about due to the BTN is NOTHING like what the Big East has with it's network.
AdCorbett wrote:
It is exactly the same. What channel is it on? What other sports does it carry?
The SEC Network games are exactly the same as ours. They are syndicated, and mostly available on PPV if not in your market. how does that differ from ours. I live in SEC country, so I know.
Nice quote. I am waiting for the part that was incorrect. The SEC "Network" is exactly like ours. It is a trade name for the syndicated programming ESPN sells that involve SEC teams. It is not a real network. I believe I was responding to you on that quote, no? So where can I find this SEC Network you speak of? What channel is it on?
And I posted months ago how you are incorrect:http://www.secsports.com/news/default.as...leId=12966
"The SEC Network, through the efforts of ESPN, will be the largest college sports syndication television package in the country," SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said. "The comprehensive market coverage in the nine-state SEC area combined with the out-of-market reach gives us significant additional exposure for our programs."
The markets that will air the package represent more than 54 million television households, or 47 percent of the U.S. Before the first football game this season, as clearance work continues, the coverage area will be larger still. The 15-year agreement between ESPN and the SEC begins with the 2009-10 season and continues through 2023-24.
Why I post this again since you have no comprehension is a mystery even to myself--but others who read here understand so at least that is worth it.
The SEC's "channel" is ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc. Their events are on around the country in far more markets than BE games are (many without ppv--another difference from the BEN). There are coverage of more sports, they have studio shows and on and on. It is like the BE coverage in name only. Every day you can see SEC coverage on the ESPN networks. But of course you once again can't admit YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.
(06-28-2010 09:03 AM)buckaineer Wrote: In response to: Even if they stick with ESPN the ACC is due an increase,
Adcorbett wrote: The ACC is NOT due an increase. They are ALL worried because they were overpaid in the contract negotiated after expansion, and their rights fees are expected to go way down. Way down.
Well, let's see, they were not "due" an increase. And they did not get one by "sticking with ESPN," or just because ESPN thought they were owed more. They received an increase because they shopped their package to Fox, and thus the second bidder drove up the price. Any prediction can be incorrect without all relevant info. Most others who spoke on the subject, whcih you failed to post as well, thought the ACC was due for an inflation increase at best, or even a slight decrease. There was one person who insisted they would get an increase in the $100 -$120 million a year range, but no one predicted Fox would be a serious bidder.
I was wrong in my prediction, but not remotely in the way you are implying. And if you really want to go there, my wording was by "sticking with ESPN," which meant just by renegotiationg only with ESPN. Since that never happened, no one really knows what would have happend had it played out like we thought. The ACC would have been more valuable to Fox because they don't have any other eastern time zone national college sports inventory, and they would have bascially created an ACC netowrk (that they owned), and made money like we are hoping to do with a Big East Network. ESPN could not afford that to happen (and the same will happen if we have a second bidder), but of course you knew that, right? 
YOU WERE WRONG. Wrong exactly as I'm stating-not implying. YOU WERE WRONG. Just as you now have the audacity to criticize someone else--this time in Frank the Tank. The post you responded to stated that the ACC would get an increase based on the evidence-and you just had to throw your pretend knowledge in there once again. YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.
(06-28-2010 09:03 AM)buckaineer Wrote: In response to: The ACC is about to get an increase in tv deals.
Adcorbett wrote: Not sure where you get your information, but it is bad. very very bad
I could go on but don't have all day. I think we all get the picture from just these few statements how accurate and knowledgeable this AD character is
See above.
I do see above--ONCE AGAIN_YOU WERE WRONG. I mean, I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
I suppose you could "go on all day," but so far you swing hard and missed on two, and had would would be considered a broken bat single on the third.
Now, I could go on "all day" about a poster who constantly posts subjective information, tries to pass them off as "facts," then bombard anyone who qho questions said info with requests for "factual analysis" to prove their subjective theories incorrect. I could also post about a poster who is materially incorrect about many things he posts, not that their opinion is wrong, but the actual facts being argued are incorrect. I could go on about how said poster realy is cluseless half the time about what he is talking about, but that really would not be necessary because most everyone who posts on here regularly already knows all of this.
Perhaps you need to look up subjective yourself. It is you that constantly posts subjective information (which you apparently don't understand by your lame a$$ childish signature). You post baseless information incessantly. Then when you are called out on it you pretend you said something else or meant it in a different way.
It's obvious you have no clue what you are trying to talk about, but of course everyone else here can clearly see this. You will not admit it but we all know the truth. Perhaps before criticizing other posters you should check some facts, look up the meaning of "subjective" since YOU don't know what it means, and better yet keep quiet if you don't have anything other than trying to piggyback on someone else's post's by acting like you are the local "post" critic. You'd need to have at least a basic level of comprehension to actually be able to critique someone else and from what all can see, you have very little of this. Maybe stick to criticizing your own posts for errors before you waste all of our time from now on.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2010 05:23 PM by buckaineer.)
|
|
